Author Topic: STS-133 refined to a five crew, one EVA mission – will leave MPLM on ISS  (Read 46752 times)


Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2585
  • Boca Chica, Texas
  • Liked: 3159
  • Likes Given: 228
 Does the deletion of the SRB foam mean they'll be abandoned to sink?

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22325
  • Liked: 603
  • Likes Given: 244
"STS-133 will also see a configuration change to its Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs). In order to eliminate as much weight as possible to maximize cargo upmass on this mission, the STS-133 SRBs will have their water impact structures and foam, cosmetic paint, water impact foam, and Reusable Solid Rocket Motor Nozzle Severance System removed."

Well looks like we will have ugly disposable boosters for this mission, in the vain interest of aesthetics I dope this is not the last to fly, would be terrible to have an ugly duckling for the last flight.....
"Every vision is a joke until the first man accomplishes it; once realized, it becomes commonplace." - Robert Goddard

Offline DMeader

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 953
  • Liked: 98
  • Likes Given: 47
Where would the PLM be berthed, and would tying up a CBM position be a problem?

Online Chris Bergin

Does the deletion of the SRB foam mean they'll be abandoned to sink?

I don't know about sink, but they'll be probably ruined.

Offline cd-slam

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 573
  • Singapore
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 16
Does the deletion of the SRB foam mean they'll be abandoned to sink?
It wasn't stated in the article, but in an earlier version it was stated that SRB parachutes and cameras would also be removed. In this case, the SRBs would be spinning and free falling all the way down. I doubt there will be anything left worth picking up once they hit the ocean.

Offline ChrisGebhardt

  • Assistant Managing Editor
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5450
  • ad astra scientia
  • ~1 AU
  • Liked: 2077
  • Likes Given: 339
Does the deletion of the SRB foam mean they'll be abandoned to sink?
It wasn't stated in the article, but in an earlier version it was stated that SRB parachutes and cameras would also be removed. In this case, the SRBs would be spinning and free falling all the way down. I doubt there will be anything left worth picking up once they hit the ocean.

That's Phase II of weight reduction options. These that they just incorporated on Phase I. Were not at the point of ditching the SRBs in the Atlantic just yet.  The way I read the presentations was that these are item on the SRBs that they can live without on the final mission -- which is why I including the thing about the extension at the end of the article.

Offline jgoldader

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 672
  • Liked: 224
  • Likes Given: 132
When CxP was thinking of ditching SRBs to avoid the weight of the recovery systems, I believe there was an article somewhere here on how many sets of SRM segments were available.  Does somebody remember the number?  I know this isn't likely important for SSP, but if a multi-mission extension should come and NASA gets into the habit of cutting corners on SRB recovery hardware, it could be important for any SDLVs.

You can PM me if it's L2, I subscribe.

Thanks!
Jeff
Recovering astronomer

Offline Alpha Control

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1169
  • Washington, DC
  • Liked: 106
  • Likes Given: 68
Where would the PLM be berthed, and would tying up a CBM position be a problem?

That continues to be an intriguing question. As far as I've read in recent times, the answers are still being worked as to the berthing location (caveat to my post: I've been away from NSF for a month - this issue may have been settled). 

I've previously posted the thought that Node-3 Forward, or Node-3 Zenith might be workable locations for the PLM (orientations based on Node-3's final attachment configuration to Node-1 Port, with the Cuppola then attached to Node-3 Nadir).

Other issues that have come up over the last year or so with the concept of a permanently attached MPLM are:

(1) Which MPLM to use? The three are not exact duplicates - one has more "system capability" than its two siblings (don't recall which one that is).
(2) What modifications are needed? (mmod protection, power, ventilation, etc.) The answer to #1 affects the amount of modifications needed for permanent use.
(3) Who will pay for the modifications?

As the plans for STS-133/ULF5 continue to move forward, I think the assumption has to be that all of these items are in the process of being addressed. Quite exciting, and I look forward to learning more about this mission!
Space launches attended:
Antares/Cygnus ORB-D1 Wallops Island, VA Sept 2013 | STS-123 KSC, FL March 2008 | SpaceShipOne Mojave, CA June 2004

Offline Orbiter

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2185
  • Florida
  • Liked: 386
  • Likes Given: 911
I don't think they're going to put it on the nadir side of Harmony, that's where HTV and Dragon are going to go. I think they'll put it on the Zenith port of Harmony. Tranquility wont work, seeing as its going on the starboard side of Unity now so clearance will be an issue.
Attended space missions: STS-114, STS-124, STS-128, STS-135, Atlas V "Curiosity", Delta IV Heavy NROL-15, Atlas V MUOS-2, Delta IV Heavy NROL-37, SpaceX CRS-9, SpaceX JCSAT-16, Atlas V GOES-R, SpaceX SES-11.

Offline Alpha Control

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1169
  • Washington, DC
  • Liked: 106
  • Likes Given: 68
I wasn't suggesting any side of Node-2 (Harmony) as an attachment point for the PLM.  Rather, I think that an attachment to Node-3 zenith or forward would work, given the stated issues regarding clearance.
Space launches attended:
Antares/Cygnus ORB-D1 Wallops Island, VA Sept 2013 | STS-123 KSC, FL March 2008 | SpaceShipOne Mojave, CA June 2004

Offline Orbiter

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2185
  • Florida
  • Liked: 386
  • Likes Given: 911
"STS-133 will also see a configuration change to its Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs). In order to eliminate as much weight as possible to maximize cargo upmass on this mission, the STS-133 SRBs will have their water impact structures and foam, cosmetic paint, water impact foam, and Reusable Solid Rocket Motor Nozzle Severance System removed."

Well looks like we will have ugly disposable boosters for this mission, in the vain interest of aesthetics I dope this is not the last to fly, would be terrible to have an ugly duckling for the last flight.....

We started with a strange looking stack (well, strange nowadays) we're going out with a strange looking stack!  ;)
« Last Edit: 08/05/2009 05:39 AM by Orbiter »
Attended space missions: STS-114, STS-124, STS-128, STS-135, Atlas V "Curiosity", Delta IV Heavy NROL-15, Atlas V MUOS-2, Delta IV Heavy NROL-37, SpaceX CRS-9, SpaceX JCSAT-16, Atlas V GOES-R, SpaceX SES-11.

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7442
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 162
We will be vic-toooooo-ri-ous!!!

Offline nathan.moeller

  • Astro95 Media
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4008
  • Houston, TX
    • Astro95 Media
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 0
What areas of the SRBs receive cosmetic paint, and what will they look like without it?
www.astro95media.com - Lead Video & Graphics

Offline Bubbinski

That's a real good question - would the "cosmetic paint" be the full white paint job or just certain parts on the SRB?  For example, the black stripe on the left SRB by the nosecone? 

And if shuttle extension is approved, would the PLM still be flown on STS-133 or would it be moved to the last new flight?
I'll even excitedly look forward to "flags and footprints" and suborbital missions. Just fly...somewhere.

Offline C5C6

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 264
  • Cσrdoba - Argentina
    • programaespacial.com
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
I'm kinda excited... my eyes got wet =P another ISS module!!

As to reduce weight, why don't they leave the OBSS in the station in STS-132 and do TPS inspections after undocking just as in STS-124??

This news just made my day!!

Offline simon-th

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 952
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
I wasn't suggesting any side of Node-2 (Harmony) as an attachment point for the PLM.  Rather, I think that an attachment to Node-3 zenith or forward would work, given the stated issues regarding clearance.

If Node-3, as apparently planned right now, is located at starboard of Node-1, all 4 open docking ports of Node-3 will have clearing issues (truss, radiators etc.). Node-3 nadir is already occupied by Cupola. If you relocated cupola to another position (not sure if that's possible from a clearance issue), you might be able to get the PLM attached to Node-3 nadir.

In any event, I believe what was been talked about is Node 2 zenith or nadir (with nadir being a problem due to it being the HTV/COTS-vehicle docking port and Node 2 zenith being exposed the most to MMOD.

Offline Alpha Control

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1169
  • Washington, DC
  • Liked: 106
  • Likes Given: 68
I wasn't suggesting any side of Node-2 (Harmony) as an attachment point for the PLM.  Rather, I think that an attachment to Node-3 zenith or forward would work, given the stated issues regarding clearance.

If Node-3, as apparently planned right now, is located at starboard of Node-1, all 4 open docking ports of Node-3 will have clearing issues (truss, radiators etc.). Node-3 nadir is already occupied by Cupola. If you relocated cupola to another position (not sure if that's possible from a clearance issue), you might be able to get the PLM attached to Node-3 nadir.

In any event, I believe what was been talked about is Node 2 zenith or nadir (with nadir being a problem due to it being the HTV/COTS-vehicle docking port and Node 2 zenith being exposed the most to MMOD.

Isn't Quest currently at Node-1 starboard? Although it's probably the same clearance issue, in terms of distance from the radiators.
Space launches attended:
Antares/Cygnus ORB-D1 Wallops Island, VA Sept 2013 | STS-123 KSC, FL March 2008 | SpaceShipOne Mojave, CA June 2004

Offline Ben E

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 990
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
What about Node-1 nadir? It's not occupied and, as far as I'm aware, unobstructed.

Offline brahmanknight

  • I don't have all the right answers, but I do have all the right questions
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 686
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 94
What about Node-1 nadir? It's not occupied and, as far as I'm aware, unobstructed.

That will be used for HTV and Dragon. 

Zenith is open, however.

Offline simon-th

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 952
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
What about Node-1 nadir? It's not occupied and, as far as I'm aware, unobstructed.

That will be used for HTV and Dragon. 

Zenith is open, however.

You are talking about Node-2.

Node-1 nadir will be occupied by PMA-3

On another thread the following was posted some time ago (those ports which aren't available in any event are marked by strike-through):

Quote
Node 1 (6 ports)
: forward: Destiny Lab
: aft: Zarya
: zenith:blocked by Z1 Truss
: starboard: Quest
: port: Node 3 - which could be relocated to nadir if required
: nadir: PMA-3 - which could be relocated to port if required (?)

Node 2 (6 ports)
: forward: PMA-2
: aft: Destiny
: zenith: free
: starboard: Columbus
: port: Kibo
: nadir: free - but required for birthing of HTV/COTS vehicles

Node 3 (6 ports) (connected to Node 1 port option)
: starboard: Node 1
: port: free (blocked?)
: nadir: Cupola (?)
: forward: free - but disabled (and blocked)
: aft: free - but disabled (and blocked)
: zenith: free - but disabled (blocked?)
« Last Edit: 08/05/2009 01:20 PM by simon-th »

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 1
Some (un)informed discussion going on :)

Node 1 zenith is Z1 and stays this way.

I am not sure Node 3 zenith is blocked (maybe by SGANT), nor am I sure Node 3 forward is (maybe by truss camera). I am not even sure Node 3 aft is blocked (maybe by FGB solar arrays).

My bet is Node 1 nadir (with PMA-3 somewhere at Node-3) or Node 2 zenith, in this order.

Analyst

PS: With enough time a Node-3 CBM could be enabled.
« Last Edit: 08/05/2009 01:21 PM by Analyst »

Offline simon-th

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 952
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0


Isn't Quest currently at Node-1 starboard? Although it's probably the same clearance issue, in terms of distance from the radiators.

Year, sorry. I meant Node-1 port which then would mean Node-3 starboard.

Offline simon-th

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 952
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0

My bet is Node 1 nadir (with PMA-3 somewhere at Node-3) or Node 2 zenith, in this order.

Analyst

PS: With enough time a Node-3 CBM could be enabled.

Isn't PMA-3 not only a spare but is going to also be used by Orion at some point for docking? If you relocate it to Node 3, could you do a docking to it?

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 1
Quote
Node 3 (6 ports) (connected to Node 1 port option)
: starboard: Node 1
: port: free (blocked?)
: nadir: Cupola (?)
: forward: free - but disabled (and blocked)
: aft: free - but disabled (and blocked)
: zenith: free - but disabled (blocked?)

Port is blocked for sure by radiators

As I said, not sure about the other three being blocked.

Analyst

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 1

My bet is Node 1 nadir (with PMA-3 somewhere at Node-3) or Node 2 zenith, in this order.

Analyst

PS: With enough time a Node-3 CBM could be enabled.

Isn't PMA-3 not only a spare but is going to also be used by Orion at some point for docking? If you relocate it to Node 3, could you do a docking to it?

No docking then. But with Orion flying somtimes beyond 2017 and likely never more than once at a time I don't worry much about it now.

Analyst

Offline cd-slam

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 573
  • Singapore
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 16
That's Phase II of weight reduction options. These that they just incorporated on Phase I. Were not at the point of ditching the SRBs in the Atlantic just yet.  The way I read the presentations was that these are item on the SRBs that they can live without on the final mission -- which is why I including the thing about the extension at the end of the article.
OIC, thanks for this info. So we are ending not with a bang, but a splash.

Offline MarsMethanogen

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
  • Denver, Colorado USA
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Thoroughly enjoyed this article.  I had questions about the actions planned for the SRB's, but they were answered above.  One other thing that I found interesting and didn't know was the ability to remove cryo and GN2 tanks to increase upmass, referring to the passage in the article; “the STS-133 orbiter will have its 5th cryo tank set removed, as well as its 6th Gaseous Nitrogen tank, during turn-around processing in its Orbiter Processing Facility.”  Fascinating.  I assume that this is feasible given the planned (shorter) duration of the mission.  Would I be correct in assuming that the “cryo tanks” refer to the LOX and LH2 fuel cell reactants?  And are the GN2 tanks referred to the tanks that store the N2 for the mixed-gas atmosphere or the N2 used to purge the OMS after OMS burns?  Thanks.
« Last Edit: 08/05/2009 03:42 PM by MarsMethanogen »

Offline C5C6

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 264
  • Cσrdoba - Argentina
    • programaespacial.com
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
They should just put Tranquility on Unity nadir, Cupola on Tranquility forward, PMA-3 on Tranquility nadir and PLM on Tranquility aft...

I still don't get why they changed Tranquility from Unity nadir to port... it would be more symetrical for the ISS the first option...

Offline brahmanknight

  • I don't have all the right answers, but I do have all the right questions
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 686
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 94
They should just put Tranquility on Unity nadir, Cupola on Tranquility forward, PMA-3 on Tranquility nadir and PLM on Tranquility aft...

I still don't get why they changed Tranquility from Unity nadir to port... it would be more symetrical for the ISS the first option...

I believe it was done because of a concern of proximity to the nadir Zarya port, even with the addition of the new Russian Mini Lab. 

Offline glanmor05

  • BWFC Fan
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 429
  • It's not all tea and medals!
  • Blackpool, England
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Can I ask a really stupid one (be kind!)?  Why not:

Node 3 on Node 2 forward (instead of PMA 2)

PMA2 then on what will be Node 3 forward

Cupola on what will be Node 3 Nadir.

PLM on what willl be Node 3 Zenith.

PMA 3 stays where it is.

Potential problems that I can think of (sure you'll all help me with more).  Cupola too far away to sensibly monitor Russian dockings.  Also (can't do the 3D visualisation but...) may require enabling of one of Node 3's CBMs.


Edit:  HTV and arm clearance and does an inbalance (length wise) about the truss matter?
« Last Edit: 08/05/2009 07:05 PM by glanmor05 »
"Through struggles, to the stars."

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2585
  • Boca Chica, Texas
  • Liked: 3159
  • Likes Given: 228
 They may not have considered the biggest advantage of Node 2 zenith. It would make my ISS model look more accurate since I still have the CAM there.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31294
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9579
  • Likes Given: 299
Thoroughly enjoyed this article.  I had questions about the actions planned for the SRB's, but they were answered above.  One other thing that I found interesting and didn't know was the ability to remove cryo and GN2 tanks to increase upmass, referring to the passage in the article; “the STS-133 orbiter will have its 5th cryo tank set removed, as well as its 6th Gaseous Nitrogen tank, during turn-around processing in its Orbiter Processing Facility.”  Fascinating.  I assume that this is feasible given the planned (shorter) duration of the mission.  Would I be correct in assuming that the “cryo tanks” refer to the LOX and LH2 fuel cell reactants?  And are the GN2 tanks referred to the tanks that store the N2 for the mixed-gas atmosphere or the N2 used to purge the OMS after OMS burns?  Thanks.

correct.

It is atmospheric N2.    They also can go down to 3 cryo tank sets.

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6179
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 0
Can I ask a really stupid one (be kind!)?  Why not:

Node 3 on Node 2 forward (instead of PMA 2)

Node 3 umbilicals run to Node 1 and are not long enough to reach Node 2. Could be extended but would be pain in ass. Running out of time (L-6 months) for major changes. Node 3 to Node 2 option would have to show significant benefits to justify this and it does not.
« Last Edit: 08/05/2009 07:16 PM by Jorge »
JRF

Offline glanmor05

  • BWFC Fan
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 429
  • It's not all tea and medals!
  • Blackpool, England
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Can I ask a really stupid one (be kind!)?  Why not:

Node 3 on Node 2 forward (instead of PMA 2)

Node 3 umbilicals run to Node 1 and are not long enough to reach Node 2. Could be extended but would be pain in ass. Running out of time (L-6 months) for major changes. Node 3 to Node 2 option would have to show significant benefits to justify this and it does not.

Thanks, that sounds sensible.  Never mind, just a thought.
"Through struggles, to the stars."

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17773
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 441
  • Likes Given: 3337
Great article Chris G.
Remembering those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our rights & freedoms, and for those injured, visible or otherwise, in that fight.

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22325
  • Liked: 603
  • Likes Given: 244
Is that a replacement radiator to the left and behind the cupola?
"Every vision is a joke until the first man accomplishes it; once realized, it becomes commonplace." - Robert Goddard

Offline Alpha Control

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1169
  • Washington, DC
  • Liked: 106
  • Likes Given: 68
Is that a replacement radiator to the left and behind the cupola?
It sure has the look of one, doesn't it?
Space launches attended:
Antares/Cygnus ORB-D1 Wallops Island, VA Sept 2013 | STS-123 KSC, FL March 2008 | SpaceShipOne Mojave, CA June 2004

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17773
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 441
  • Likes Given: 3337
Is that a replacement radiator to the left and behind the cupola?

That's a good catch Ron...looks like it too. I know they were working on it, so I guess they finished it (I think it was re-work to an existing one, not a new unit).
Remembering those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our rights & freedoms, and for those injured, visible or otherwise, in that fight.

Offline ShuttleDiscovery

  • NASA's first teenage astronaut
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2141
  • UK
    • Shuttle Discovery's Space Page
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
This is my first post here in ages. I just wanted to say that I really hope they decide to refit Donatello, as otherwise that module will be a complete waste of money. Seeing as it's more advanced than the other two, and it hasn't been in space before, it makes sense that this should be part of the ISS.

Offline glanmor05

  • BWFC Fan
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 429
  • It's not all tea and medals!
  • Blackpool, England
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
This is my first post here in ages. I just wanted to say that I really hope they decide to refit Donatello, as otherwise that module will be a complete waste of money. Seeing as it's more advanced than the other two, and it hasn't been in space before, it makes sense that this should be part of the ISS.

Says in this article , Raffaello:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8226309.stm

Won't be the only wasted money though eh!
"Through struggles, to the stars."

Offline ShuttleDiscovery

  • NASA's first teenage astronaut
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2141
  • UK
    • Shuttle Discovery's Space Page
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
This is my first post here in ages. I just wanted to say that I really hope they decide to refit Donatello, as otherwise that module will be a complete waste of money. Seeing as it's more advanced than the other two, and it hasn't been in space before, it makes sense that this should be part of the ISS.

Says in this article , Raffaello:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8226309.stm

Won't be the only wasted money though eh!

Yeah I suppose lol!

I remember discussing this possibility on NSF ages ago, and now it's becoming a reality, it's great. Hopefully the ISS will have much less clutter with Raffaello attached. :)

Online Chris Bergin

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/10/nasa-evaluate-sts-335-sts-133-cross-country-farewell/

Update on 133, including a plan to bring her home via California for a farewell tour (as much as I hope that doesn't happen yet, and we have extension).

Offline FreeWillie

  • Member
  • Posts: 6
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
I think there is some older info here, or folks are misreading what is put in the charts. 

ET-94 can never be used for shuttle again.  While it could be fixed up for flight as a tank at MAF, the programmatic cert costs for the orbiter and all its systems to fly an LWTank would be prohibitive.

Chris wrote:
Interestingly, the spare tank stock was not communicated to the Augustine Commission, who are under the impression there is no spare tank hardware at MAF past ET-122

The commission was shown a 2 flight extension option.  (which did not include ET-94)


Chris wrote:
One recent addition to the STS-335 plans is to include a MPLM to the flight, which would be the first time a rescue mission would carry an actual payload.

Every rescue mission currently being planned is carrying the actual payloads of the next flight.


Chris wrote:
However, this also allows for an opening cycle of evaluations aimed at turning STS-335 into STS-135. Adding another mission would only come via additional funding – most likely through approval to extend the shuttle manifest – though sources note at least one meeting has taken place, relating to STS-135 as an actual mission, within the past few weeks.


The last LON has always been funded.  When the MPLM was selected as the quickest and best way to rescue STS-133 there were some meetings to discuss what to call it.   NASA will not fly without LON capability.


There were some early discussions for weight saving mods to hardware, but the costs to recert the hardware were high.  None of those SRB mods are being implemented.

Online Chris Bergin

I think there is some older info here, or folks are misreading what is put in the charts. 

ET-94 can never be used for shuttle again.  While it could be fixed up for flight as a tank at MAF, the programmatic cert costs for the orbiter and all its systems to fly an LWTank would be prohibitive.

Chris wrote:
Interestingly, the spare tank stock was not communicated to the Augustine Commission, who are under the impression there is no spare tank hardware at MAF past ET-122

The commission was shown a 2 flight extension option.  (which did not include ET-94)


Chris wrote:
One recent addition to the STS-335 plans is to include a MPLM to the flight, which would be the first time a rescue mission would carry an actual payload.

Every rescue mission currently being planned is carrying the actual payloads of the next flight.


Chris wrote:
However, this also allows for an opening cycle of evaluations aimed at turning STS-335 into STS-135. Adding another mission would only come via additional funding – most likely through approval to extend the shuttle manifest – though sources note at least one meeting has taken place, relating to STS-135 as an actual mission, within the past few weeks.


The last LON has always been funded.  When the MPLM was selected as the quickest and best way to rescue STS-133 there were some meetings to discuss what to call it.   NASA will not fly without LON capability.


There were some early discussions for weight saving mods to hardware, but the costs to recert the hardware were high.  None of those SRB mods are being implemented.


With respect, you've badly misread the article. There is no old or misleading information in the article, I know, as it was proof read by both SSP and SOMD manager. But let's explain....

1) I simply noted ET-94 is a spare tank. I said it would require extensive modifications for the reasons you noted and or a 7,000lb performance hit which makes it unviable anyway. I did NOT add it to an extension option (and even noted the next tanks would be ET-122, then the part built ET-139 and ET-140, I never said ET-94 in relation to extension, I was just mentioning hardware at MAF).

2) This is the only sole LON flight on the manifest. The rescue support for the missions up to STS-134 are next flight missions and thus have their primary payloads. They dropped the 3XX for that reason. STS-335 is not a mission flight, it's pure LON.

3) STS-135 is not funded, and is not a mission. You're saying I was apparently saying STS-335 was unfunded - which I never said. You claim LON would never be dropped, but there's not one mention of LON being dropped in the article.

Offline cd-slam

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 573
  • Singapore
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 16
Chris wrote:
Interestingly, the spare tank stock was not communicated to the Augustine Commission, who are under the impression there is no spare tank hardware at MAF past ET-122

The commission was shown a 2 flight extension option.  (which did not include ET-94)
If you'll read the article, the "spare tank stock" refers to ET-139 and ET-140. ET-139 was the tank shown for the 2nd flight on the 2 flight extension option shown to the committee by Sally Ride.

For some reason the 2 flight extension option was removed from the list of options in the Augustine Commission presentation, hence the tone of the last few paragraphs in Chris' article. I agree with Chris, I'd like to know why this happened too and why NASA management seems to be so hell-bent on destroying HSF.

Back to work...
« Last Edit: 10/13/2009 09:01 PM by cd-slam »

Offline Sesquipedalian

  • Whee!
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 628
  • Liked: 166
  • Likes Given: 491
Possibly off-topic, but -- why didn't they use ET-94 for STS-125?  (Assuming they could make the RTF modifications in time.)
« Last Edit: 10/14/2009 02:46 AM by Sesquipedalian »

Offline MBK004

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 100
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Possibly off-topic, but -- why didn't they use ET-94 for STS-125?  (Assuming they could make the RTF modifications in time.)
I'm guessing that the additional APM (Ascent Performance Margin) available with a SLWT versus a LWT was utilized to provide the capability to haul additional payload mass to Hubble.

Offline ChrisGebhardt

  • Assistant Managing Editor
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5450
  • ad astra scientia
  • ~1 AU
  • Liked: 2077
  • Likes Given: 339
Possibly off-topic, but -- why didn't they use ET-94 for STS-125?  (Assuming they could make the RTF modifications in time.)
I'm guessing that the additional APM (Ascent Performance Margin) available with a SLWT versus a LWT was utilized to provide the capability to haul additional payload mass to Hubble.

Atlantis was packed to the max anyway for Hubble. Adding weight because of the ET would have severely cutback on the amount of payload Atlantis could have carried with her.

Offline C5C6

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 264
  • Cσrdoba - Argentina
    • programaespacial.com
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Hi, just wanted to ask, as SFN published an interesting article stating that Leonardo will be used as the PLM, it will be called Permanent Multipurpose Module (PMM) and that it would be berthed in Harmony zenith, and after that to Unity nadir...

Just wanted to ask if our experts here were aware of this...I'd understood that PMM on Node 2 zenith was too risky due to MMOD...and if it is berthed on Unity nadir, where would the PMA-3 go??

article: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0912/06pmm/
« Last Edit: 12/07/2009 11:27 AM by C5C6 »

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16935
  • Liked: 1012
  • Likes Given: 447
Hi, just wanted to ask, as SFN published an interesting article stating that Leonardo will be used as the PLM, it will be called Permanent Multipurpose Module (PMM) and that it would be berthed in Harmony zenith, and after that to Unity nadir...

Just wanted to ask if our experts here were aware of this...I'd understood that PMM on Node 2 zenith was too risky due to MMOD...and if it is berthed on Unity nadir, where would the PMA-3 go??

article: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0912/06pmm/
Already known; discussed in this thread a while ago:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12262.0

(And probably others.)

Offline cd-slam

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 573
  • Singapore
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 16
There is full documentation on the Node 3, PMA3 and PMM locations included in the STS 130 update posted on L2 on October 15. If you're not on L2, ask yourself "why not?"
:)

Offline Aobrien

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1360
  • Tampa, Florida
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Hi, just wanted to ask, as SFN published an interesting article stating that Leonardo will be used as the PLM, it will be called Permanent Multipurpose Module (PMM) and that it would be berthed in Harmony zenith, and after that to Unity nadir...

Just wanted to ask if our experts here were aware of this...I'd understood that PMM on Node 2 zenith was too risky due to MMOD...and if it is berthed on Unity nadir, where would the PMA-3 go??

article: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0912/06pmm/
Node 3 Port
NSF L2=The Ultimate Space Passport

Offline C5C6

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 264
  • Cσrdoba - Argentina
    • programaespacial.com
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Hi, just wanted to ask, as SFN published an interesting article stating that Leonardo will be used as the PLM, it will be called Permanent Multipurpose Module (PMM) and that it would be berthed in Harmony zenith, and after that to Unity nadir...

Just wanted to ask if our experts here were aware of this...I'd understood that PMM on Node 2 zenith was too risky due to MMOD...and if it is berthed on Unity nadir, where would the PMA-3 go??

article: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0912/06pmm/
Node 3 Port
Is this officially confirmed?? If so, when would PMA-3 relocation take place??

Offline anik

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7358
  • Liked: 340
  • Likes Given: 284
Is this officially confirmed?? If so, when would PMA-3 relocation take place??

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=61.msg513074#msg513074

Quote
2010
January 21 - PMA-3 relocation from left port of Unity module to zenith port of Harmony module with SSRMS help
February 15 - PMA-3 relocation from zenith port of Harmony module to left port of Tranquility module with SSRMS help

Offline Space Pete

NASA's STS-133 Image Gallery is now online!

Just an observation: This may be the last ever Space Shuttle Mission Image Gallery. :(

www.spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-133/ndxpage1.html
« Last Edit: 01/07/2010 08:01 PM by Space Pete »
Electronic Engineer by day, NASASpaceflight's ISS Editor by night | Read my NASASpaceflight articles here

Offline jacqmans

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16676
  • Houten, The Netherlands
  • Liked: 2348
  • Likes Given: 156
RELEASE: 10-044

NASA AND ITALIAN SPACE AGENCY FIND NEW USE FOR MODULE

WASHINGTON -- NASA and the Italian Space Agency announced a new use
for an existing Multi Purpose Logistics Module (MPLM) known as
"Leonardo." It will be transformed into a Permanent Multipurpose
Module (PMM) for the International Space Station.

For nearly a decade, the Italian-built logistic modules have flown
inside the payload bays of NASA's shuttle fleet, successfully
delivering vital hardware and supplies to the station. The new use
for this proven carrier will enhance the use of the station.

Leonardo will undergo modifications to ensure safe, long-term
operation as the PMM, and to increase the amount of mass it can carry
to orbit. The supply-laden PMM will be flown aboard shuttle Discovery
during the STS-133 mission in September and attached to the station.
The added space within the PMM will enable efficient positioning of
experiments throughout the station complex. Inside the PMM,
experiments in fluid physics, materials science, biology,
biotechnology and other microgravity experiments may be conducted.

Offline ZachS09

When this announcement was made for STS-133 to carry a crew of five, which Mission Specialist would have been off the crew? I think Nicole Stott. What do you guys think?
"Liftoff of Falcon 9: the world's first reflight of an orbital-class rocket."

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31294
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9579
  • Likes Given: 299
There wasn't 5 announced.

Tags: